Alcon’s Johnny Depp Failure ‘Transcendence;’ What The Hell Happened?

Movies open every weekend. Some soar, some fail. Every once in a while a flop comes along that is so unexpected and devastating that everyone in town is left saying, “How the hell did that happen?” Recent examples include John Carter, The Lone Ranger and maybe even Pompeii or The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty, even if the latter two sank without making much of a ripple. The $100 million Transcendence, the Johnny Depp-Morgan Freeman starrer that marked the directing debut of Chris Nolan’s vaunted cinematographer Wally Pfister, is one of those what-the-hell-happened films. Consider it grossed just $10.8 million domestic for its opening weekend, about half of Heaven Is For Real, a starless movie whose $12 million budget was likely less than Depp’s Transcendence salary. Heaven If For Real has grossed $30 million so far domestically and looks like a breakout sleeper hit.

So what the hell happened? There is blame to go around, including at Alcon Entertainment, which with its offshore partners fully financed the Warner Bros-distributed flop. Talking to numerous parties, I believe this was a movie that probably never should have been made because the script was complex, derivative, and hard to market, and it was not easy to discern who the audience should have been. It also is a case where yet again it was a mistake to give a first-time director the keys to a movie with complex subject matter that required meshing with the high maintenance of a big movie star and a giant budget. Transcendence seems similar in some ways to John Carter, where first-time live-action director Andrew Stanton had the endorsement of Pixar’s John Lasseter that led Disney execs to give him a lot of rope, and he proved out of his depth despite having directed so many animated hits. Here, Pfister got the job after standing aside Nolan as cinematographer, and proving himself a gifted visual artist on such films as The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception. Nolan, who made the film Insomnia at Alcon, endorsed his protege there and encouraged him to start on the kind of big canvas on which Nolan creates his masterpieces. But just because Pfister stands next to Nolan doesn’t mean he is Nolan, or has his ability for making the most complex storytelling palatable for the masses, like he did on Inception. The shoot was rough. Pfister and Alcon certainly put in the work here, and got the test scores to an acceptable level, but critics just hated the movie. Audiences felt the same, with the film getting a 19% rating on RottenTomatoes. And Johnny Depp, mostly seen as a computer image on a computer screen, didn’t open it the way that highly paid movie stars are supposed to.

I was thinking about this as I watched Locke, the Steven Knight-directed drama that stars Tom Hardy as a construction boss who gets in a car, begins driving and we watch his life fall apart. All of it takes place while he’s on the car phone. It is such a difficult level of execution, but Knight, a great writer, penned a script and pulled this off with Hardy in a most entertaining way, for a paltry budget. I don’t know how big the audience is, but they did something exceptional, in my opinion. While first timers who come from other areas routinely get jobs helming huge movies that risk hobbling fledgling directing careers, I wonder if Nolan could have handled Transcendence as his first film. I saw him waxing on at Slamdance in January and explaining that he hung posters for his $6,000 debut movie Following and was sparked by a Variety critic’s slam, because it meant someone has actually watched his movie. Memento also was made on the cheap. What’s wrong with starting on a smaller canvas and learning how to tell a story onscreen before stepping up to a big complex film? Not everybody is Sam Mendes, who debuted on the Best Picture winner American Beauty, or Orson Welles, who, after making three shorts, made his directing debut with Citizen Kane. In fact, those guys are the exception. Why are aspiring directors today in such a hurry, when a flop like Transcendence can do great harm to their helming careers?

So where does this leave Alcon? I’ve heard rumors this film could lose $100 million, and that it might change the risk-taking strategy of Alcon, the shingle started with financing from FedEx’s Fred Smith and run forever by Andrew Kosove and Broderick Johnson. It certainly hurts Depp’s place in the movie-star pantheon; placed alongside The Lone Ranger,Transcendence shows Depp is no longer a bona fide bankable movie star outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. I’ve heard that Alcon will lose big, but that its loss might be limited to $30 million to $35 million, including the indignity of having to repay Warner Bros for P&A minimums because the film performed so badly here. The key will be to see if Depp’s name gives the film life overseas, as happened with another domestic underperformer, 2010’s The Tourist. If Transcendence grosses $100 million offshore (which would be Depp’s lowest total in almost two decades) the losses won’t be that bad. But there’s no way around it, Transcendence is a big loser, and a lot of Alcon’s suppliers are going to suffer — and that makes it harder to go back to the well next time. I reached out to Alcon principal Kosove, who always has shot straight with me. He denied that the company will lose its nerve, and he declined to place blame. But he wasn’t about to sugarcoat what happened this past weekend.

“Alcon takes responsibility for its successes and failures, and Warner Bros worked hard on the distribution and marketing,” Kosove said. “It is a big, big disappointment to us, a horrible outcome, but we learn and move on.”

He acknowledged it was a pretty lousy day in the office today, but Alcon does have past winnings to rely on and movies coming up that look pretty good. The recent successes include the recent Denis Villeneuve-directed Prisoners,The Book Of Eli, The Blind Side, Dolphin Tale and P.S. I Love You. They have an upcoming Dolphin Tale sequel and Point Break reboot to look forward to. But today really stings.

188 Comments

WHAT happened to Lawnmower Man? Can’t you people gets tad more expansive? Shit!

Fan • on Apr 22, 2014 2:59 am

I think the implication is that the concept was given a run out in Lawnmover Man, which wasn’t a very successful movie.
At the end of the day, stars don’t count for much, and never have – Arnie and Sly were the biggest stars of the 80s and they still made their fair share of bombs. Audiences can smell a turkey. Stars only matter because they can choose the best material. They get shown everything and studios and financiers will do almost anything to get them to sign on to a project. Once a star’s ability to select good movies fails, or they choose to chase the paycheck, they start to hit the bombs. Then they lose their allure and start to see fewer scripts. Choices get tougher and they increase their chances of further failure because the see a more limited set of projects.
Love him or hate him, Tom Cruise still has a great nose for good material. He and his advisers seem to be doing a good job of keeping on top of what pictures audiences are interested in seeing. Johnny Depp has never had that ability – he takes on roles because they’re interesting and has never chased mainstream box office success. Pirates is the abberation rather than the norm.

Scott • on Apr 22, 2014 3:19 pm

Tom Cruise and his advisers have a good nose for these things? Really?!?!?!?! Is that why Oblivion, Jack Reacher, Rock of Ages and Knight and Day did so poorly?

What are you talking about, all those movies you named did very well at the box office

thurgood • on Apr 22, 2014 12:49 am

HAS ANYONE EVER ENTERED 0000 INTO GOOGLE???

Transcendence has bitten from many other films especially this one…

brooke • on Apr 22, 2014 9:10 am

For me, it’s all Depp. I’m tired of him. He’s been really embarrassing. He has been flaunting his new fiance and engagement ring all over. His hat alone is enough to make me be done with him. He is still fronting like he’s a rock star. That look for him died with the 90’s. He seems stuck and silly.

Yup • on May 2, 2014 8:49 am

Ditto.
Female portion of the population is less interested in him.
Feel bad for Paradis.

scottso • on Apr 22, 2014 5:45 pm

…!!! FINALLY !!! the production gets the bite – f’ng 12 + producers couldn’t find a ‘way’ – NOT A CLUE (all ‘collecting’)
– should never get work again…

ugh • on Apr 21, 2014 6:16 pm

I blame it on that shitty poster. it looks like depp is horribly constipated.

Hmmm: The Sequel • on Apr 21, 2014 7:00 pm

I just dribbled. Literally.

Lurker • on Apr 21, 2014 7:20 pm

You have one of the best looking men on the planet and you intentionally try to make him look bad. The poster was a very bad idea creatively.

Alcon is being nice by not calling out the marketing failure here. Yes, it is a very difficult film to market, but these are professional marketers. Do they expect to justify their inflated salaries by getting served underhanded pitches every at bat. This is the kind of film that you earn your keep on.

Just sayin • on Apr 21, 2014 9:52 pm

Alcon I believe has their own Marketing person who does the materials so…..

SallyinChicago • on Apr 22, 2014 2:15 am

Hollywood is still using the Old business model: Put a high-priced well known actor in a movie, any movie, and it will sell based on the actor. Nope, doesn’t happen that way. We have social media now and people come out of movies with opinions about the movie they pass along.
We have critic reviews.
Depp is not an actor known for opening movies, except when he’s with an ensemble or has good WOM. And I can’t remember any WOM about Depp movies in a long time.
These high-priced $100Mil movies are dinosaurs. Almost every other movie that made big boxo in the past year has been the Under $25Mil movie: About Last Night, Heaven is for Real, Ride along, and the list goes on.

John • on Apr 22, 2014 8:45 am

That’s a good call on the old business model. Also, Depp’s films have sucked for a number of years, his main audience is teenagers. No teenager in the world wants to watch this crapfest. For us older people, the story is so trite and derivative I’m honestly shocked it made it out of development hell.

BrendaKilgour • on Apr 23, 2014 11:45 am

Isn’t Johnny Depp’s key constituency 50-year-old women who still remember him as the brooding hunklet from 21 Jump Street? I think anyone outside of that cohort would find him fairly creepy at this point, what with the dumping his longtime paramour for a woman half his age and his tendency to channel Quentin Crisp in his wardrobe and manner.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 5:35 pm

Creepy?..he is a gorgeous man and you say he is creepy,I don’t get it and his private life is another thing.

Lynnette • on Apr 21, 2014 6:18 pm

Johnny Depp has had more success in his lifetime than most actors could ever dream of. So what if his films have flopped the last few times, the bigger star they are, the more pressure is on them to be in successful films. If they don’t work out everyone makes such a big deal. He’s a very talented actor and just because his films lately have not been met with commercial success it’s not the end of his career. He has a genuine passion for a acting and already has more money than he knows what to do with, I don’ think he’s upset by any means. No film is ever guaranteed a success, even with a dream cast, a talented director and an incredible script. Trust me, he’s not crying on his private island with his library if successful films and awards on his shelf.

David K • on Apr 22, 2014 8:37 am

This is a reductive argument. It’s not an attack on Johnny Depp. It’s asking why the film flopped. It doesn’t matter if he’s had some big hits, if your latest films are losing hundreds of millions o dollars, then these questions need to be asked.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 5:52 pm

Well said!At least a intelligent comment..JOHNNY DEPP’S Films have GROSSED $8 billion in the MUNDIAL BOX OFFICE.I just can write this only because THIS SITE does NOT allow me to HAD MORE!

Will! • on Apr 21, 2014 6:20 pm

Even Johnny depp knows he’s not a consistent box office star. He spent most of his career making movies HE wanted to make. He didn’t care if they made money or not. It’s not a diss in anyway but why is everyone expecting all his movies to make bank? Before Pirates he had what? One flick hit 100m?

goad • on Apr 22, 2014 2:15 am

^^^^ Exactly.

DBHughes • on Apr 21, 2014 6:21 pm

It’s not bad movie; but I wouldn’t call it spectacular either. I think it’s just a little above the general movie going audience. You must put some thought into it to realize this was an allegory to the creation story and how God wanted to help us but we were skeptical and couldn’t accept it; so ultimately God withdrew and left us to struggle in our ruin.

carla • on Apr 21, 2014 9:44 pm

WHAT?! Honestly, I don’t think the movie was above the audience. It was labored, boring, poorly paced with stilted performances and, worst of all, took what might have been an interesting science fiction premise and turned it into something that would have been better as a short story. Just a bad piece of writing and directing all the way around.

JrzygirlLA • on Apr 22, 2014 8:30 am

You hit that nail on the head.

Kaboom! • on Apr 21, 2014 10:55 pm

Young Males, Who Make Up The Majority Of Movie-Goers Here In The U.S., Aren’t Interested In Whether A Movie is an Allegory Or Not. Like Their Peers In Asia, They Crave Childish Cartoons with Lots Of Violence, Car Crashes, And Explosions.

Rationalist • on Apr 22, 2014 2:00 am

Capital Letters At The Start Of Every Word. Why?

Wicked • on Apr 22, 2014 4:02 am

Then why not market it that way? I’m not religious, but there is obviously a religious audience out there. If the movie is looking like a bomb, cut the blue wire and go for the red: the religious audience. Use the analogy you did and try to bring in folks from the south and the fly over states.

Adam • on Apr 21, 2014 6:21 pm

This isn’t at all like John Carter. John Carter didn’t bomb because Stanton was out of his depth. He was well within his depth. Carter’s failure rests entirely on Disney’s complete failure to properly market it. It was one of the worst marketing bungles in history for what ended up being a very enjoyable popcorn film. They could have had a franchise on their hands with that, if they didn’t make the film seem so putrid in the marketing materials.

And who the hell decided that ‘John Carter’ would be a marketable title? Because that’s going to stick in people’s minds.

Jose • on Apr 21, 2014 6:56 pm

Wait, are you saying John Carter was a good film?

Trevor • on Apr 21, 2014 8:14 pm

It *was* good. Not great, not as good as Stanton’s other Pixar movies, but still quite good, certainly better than I expected considering how badly it did at the box office.

Seriously, “John Carter” is the stupidest name for an epic sci-fi movie. Another example of studio execs being so embarrassed about sci-fi so that they try to pretend it’s not sci-fi, and end up alienating their core audience and confusing the rest.

Walt • on Apr 22, 2014 11:02 am

I liked John Carter too. It wasn’t the best sci-fi movie but it was still entertaining. As far as the Depp movie goes, as soon as I saw the previews I thought Lawnmower Man. Transcendence just looked like another Hollywood remake of a movie that shouldn’t have been remade.

jango • on Apr 21, 2014 7:00 pm

You enjoyed it; congrats. Many other people didn’t. It failed on many fronts, not just marketing.

Lurker • on Apr 21, 2014 7:16 pm

I worked on John Carter. Agree 100% about the marketing failure. However, Andrew Stanton was out of his depth. Disney threw unlimited resources at Stanton and spent their way through repeated reshoots to get a playable film. Any other studio would have pulled the director or closed the wallet, but they were trying to show him respect for his contributions on the animated business. In the end, showing him respect by giving him unlimited resources was really a big disservice.

“And who the hell decided that ‘John Carter’ would be a marketable title?” —- The answer to that question is MT Carney and Asad Ayaz. They were the two marketing heads who came to set and pitched the idea to Andrew.

Thomas • on Apr 21, 2014 6:22 pm

Not sure it’s rocket science. When Depp doesn’t have his pirate gear on he doesn’t move box office ticket sales in the States. Transcendence, Rum Dairy, Dark Shadows, The Tourist and Lone Ranger all underperformed.

Cali • on Apr 21, 2014 9:27 pm

Agreed.

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ll watch Johnny in a hundred Pirates flicks, but nothing else he’s done lately has intrigued me enough to see it in the theater.

DHC • on Apr 22, 2014 11:40 am

Adding on to your comment, I would find it difficult to watch Depp do a regular leading man role now, after all the Pirate movies and the rest of the junk he’s made in the past decade. Tourist was a bad movie no doubt but Jolie at least pulled off her role with aplomb. Depp looked like a deer in the headlights – without feathers and beads hanging from his head he didn’t know what to do. Now he’s just puffy in the face and headed down that road we all face – aging well or aging badly.

Jessi • on Apr 22, 2014 10:59 pm

The Tourist indeed didn’t do as well as the studio hoped, but did fine and certainly should be grouped together with Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, Transcendence, Rum Diary…..280 million off a 100 million budget might not make much profit due to marketing + theatre splits, but it didn’t really lose the studio money either.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 6:08 pm

Well he chose so many bad films to make like Dark Shadows ,the Turist,The rum Diary and The Lone Ranger..Bad Films and he looks bad in those films too..and people cares about that,believe it or not,the image is important..but he did not listen to advices..Johnny is STUBBORN..everybody said to him don’t do the lone ranger..,don’t do The turist..and the list go on but he made them anyway and you see what happened. I hope he can change that behavior..but I know him very well..

Anonymous • on Apr 21, 2014 6:23 pm

“what the hell happened?” There is no such thing as movie stars anymore. That’s what happened. Audiences are too smart to spend $20 bucks on just anything because some actor is in it. The movie has to look good and be good to produce results. The day of just throw a movie star in and the sheep will flock are over. The industry as a whole needs to change, prices are too high, “stars” are paid too much, and the public is fed up. Mediocre scripts mixed with subpar narrative equals this outcome.

Industry Old-Timer • on Apr 21, 2014 6:41 pm

You, sir, are absolutely correct!

Lurker • on Apr 21, 2014 7:24 pm

Agree, with one exception. Clooney seems to be the last movie star standing. Everyone else in the top tier seems to be fading away or aging out with no new talent rising to replace them.

WBWonk • on Apr 21, 2014 8:31 pm

Clooney?!! Did you see MONUMENTS MEN?

Me either.

Anonymous • on Apr 22, 2014 2:01 am

$150m of people did worldwide…

milo • on Apr 22, 2014 8:59 am

$150M worldwide proves the point that he’s *not* a movie star from the standpoint of bringing in audiences.

fluffo • on Apr 22, 2014 4:44 am

Clooney is the man, but has never been known for high grosses. The real last movie star standing is Tom Cruise. With the exception of Night and Day, he’s been nothing but net. Even the erstwhile king of summer, Will Smith, has fallen short lately.

Ian • on Apr 22, 2014 7:13 am

The last movie star is Tom Cruise.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 6:16 pm

WHAT? I saw his last movie Gravity and I can’t believe how that boring movie won SO many Oscars!!Come on..that was a crap and I starting to think that maybe he payed for that Oscar..like his friend Brad Pitt …both movies are bad..I don’t get all the decontrol for them! By the way talking about looks..Johnny is better looking that Brad and Clooney together!

Chad • on Apr 22, 2014 9:08 am

Problem is, when good scripts with good narratives and smaller budgets DO come out… no one goes to see them. Maybe enough to make back the budget… but not enough to make studios sit up and take notice. Hence, they’d rather make 6x the budget back on a blockbuster (Avengers) than 17x the budget back on an indie (Magic Mike), because they only look at overall gross, not which one is actually more profitable.

John Constatine • on Apr 27, 2014 9:09 am

A smaller movie makes less because it’s marketing is smaller. The vast majority of the public goes to heavily promoted movies (on television, on sites, on radio), and for that you need a good sum of money. A minority actively seeks movies, the rest wait for the movie to come to them (via marketing).

For example how many of you know about The Signal or The Rover?(upcoming movies with interesting concepts and visuals)

Random Male • on Apr 21, 2014 6:25 pm

I kept seeing commercials for Transcendence on TV for weeks and it seemed like some weird flop movie that the studio was unloading. I hadn’t even heard of it before I saw the TV commercials. I’m pretty up on the latest releases and I had never heard of this project. I didn’t even realize Johnny Depp was in it. I’m not surprised it bombed. Nobody on the street even knew about it.

Anonymous • on Apr 21, 2014 6:28 pm

Don’t blame the writer or the director. Johnny Depp is box office poison because he’s finally being seen as the weird eccentric strange lunatic he always has been. He was never a bankable movie star it was only the fluke of audiences enjoying his Jack Sparrow pirate that fooled studios into thinking Depp was a star. But he went too far in Lone Ranger with that stupid dead crow on his head and that idiotic white makeup on his face. That’s not what Tonto should look like and we should all welcome the fact that after the next Pirates sequel Depp will be forced into retirement. His entire career has been an incredibly lucky streak and it’s now coming to an overdue end.

jango • on Apr 21, 2014 7:03 pm

Don’t blame the writer or director for the film they wrote and directed? No, there’s plenty of blame for everyone. Also let’s not forget the execs whose notes clearly didn’t help. They seem to forget they gave them the moment anything flops.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 6:28 pm

Say what you want hater ..Johnny Depp is magic and great because he from nothing became a billionaire with his own island and all ,he has made his life,he is beloved and recognized worlwide..and he is not forced to nothing ,he can do whatever he wants..like it or not!God bless JD! =)

Kevin Clouser • on Apr 21, 2014 6:30 pm

With the failure of “Transcendence”, I wonder if Alcon is going to suddenly sour on that Blade Runner 2 sequel. Sure, Harrison Ford sounds interested, and Ridley Scott wants to go back, but is Alcon ready to front the cash for what will be a big budget film?

MPC • on Apr 21, 2014 6:31 pm

Pfister should’ve realized that his close friend started out small and worked his way to bigger fare, and did the same. At the most Pfister should’ve started out with a mid-budget drama or thriller, not something this big and risky.

Then again, for every two debut directors that miss (Stanton and Pfister), there’s one that hits (J.J. Abrams). It’s a crapshoot.

What happened is that a poor script and an inexperienced director were given access to colossal amounts of money.

DC • on Apr 21, 2014 10:50 pm

Simple, and the truth.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 6:29 pm

WELL SAID!

nice • on Apr 21, 2014 6:36 pm

well written article, great job.

Elia • on Apr 21, 2014 6:36 pm

Here’s a Rule for all prod-co dealing with first time directors… DO NOT SPEND $100 PLUS MILLION ON THEM. How hard is that? Good script. Great DP-turned-Director. Bankable cast. Here’s $20MM. Go make it. If they can’t make it work with $20MM, then $100MM won’t matter.

JKLoving • on Apr 21, 2014 6:38 pm

How is a script derivative and complex at the same time?

Gil Brooks • on Apr 21, 2014 7:15 pm

You can be derivative and complex, easy. Think about it. Please. Think about it.

JJBoredom • on Apr 21, 2014 8:37 pm

Derivative and complex = redundant and illogical.

Anonymous • on Apr 22, 2014 8:59 am

Because complicated doesn’t equal original.

Anonymous • on Apr 22, 2014 8:40 pm

If you need a word with a negative connotation think “convoluted”

RPG • on Apr 21, 2014 6:39 pm

“What the hell happened?”

The answer doesn’t require so many words. Just four key phrases, all starting with “BAD”…

BAD script.

BAD acting. [Could argue the actors did their best with a poorly written script.]

BAD directing.

BAD marketing.

The same happened during every other film that has flopped for JD.

babz • on Apr 22, 2014 11:03 am

it’s sad when that happens. so many scripts out there, writers trying to bust through. I have said this before; for practically no money Depp could do a docudrama of the life of Marc Bolan (TRex.) He’d rock that up. Aside from that, too many committees really seem to at times hinder the creative process. My nickel’s worth.

rake • on Apr 24, 2014 6:43 pm

Agreed in part..because you are talking about him as ALL his movies were bad and flops..no way !Johnny had many SuCCESS TOO ..like I said before..his films have GROSSED $8 BILLION in the Mundial Box Office..so it’s not all bad,doesn’t it? But why johnny always works with bad or unknown directors.?..Tim Burton and Gore are good but they let him do what he wants and that’s not good for the film..he really needs Good scripts..and how I’d love him to do a film with James Cameron ..directors like that will be amazing for his career!

DW • on Apr 21, 2014 6:40 pm

as a moviegoer , it isn’t appealing. it looked like a nolan knock off and i’m am not a fan of his anyway. i have been reading people’s comments and maybe people are having deep fatigue. he is still a great actor and movie star in my book but i can see where people could have depp fatigue.

CJS • on Apr 21, 2014 6:40 pm

My observations after seeing Transcendence Saturday afternoon: It wasn’t an interesting story and the movie wasn’t entertaining. I also didn’t like the editing at the beginning, and the constant walking through the solar panels in the desert. Also, Morgan Freeman, who is generally a highlight in any film he’s in, seemed totally disinterested in his character and the story.

ray • on Apr 21, 2014 6:41 pm

I respect Alcon and i think that andrew and broderick run a good production comapny. When it comes down to it the fatal mistake was hiring a newbie director to direct such a expensive and complex film. How many cinematogrpahers have gone to have succesful careers as filmmakers? Nicolas Roeg, Barry Sonnenfeld. It’s not easy to transition especially when your not use to working with actors. Wally’s a good guy but this should’nt have been his debut.Something smaller and more intimate could have done the trick.

The Cleaner • on Apr 21, 2014 7:17 pm

Wally is a good guy? lol clearly you have not met the man

Remy • on Apr 22, 2014 4:31 am

I want details.

Joe C. • on Apr 21, 2014 6:42 pm

First of all let me say that this was a personal attack piece against Wally Pfister and Alcon. It is a smear campaign masquerading as journalism.

I don’t care what anybody says, Transcendence is a GOOD film. It deals with singularity in a way that is above most audience member’s heads, which is why it didn’t resonate with the popcorn eating sheep of America. Most people in America don’t even know what singularity is or have even the slightest clue about Dr. Ray Kurzweil’s work. Many people who claim to know what it means think that is technology taking over mankind. It is not. It is the point at which mankind and technology merge into a super intelligence.

Also, to attack Wally Pfister because the film didn’t perform well at the box office is mixing two issues. The acting was spot on in the film. The director’s job is to deliver the best acting talent and film possible, NOT, to forcibly bring people from their homes to the theaters.

Mike Mills • on Apr 21, 2014 7:18 pm

Hi Wally! we were all wondering when you would weigh in on this story!

Bill • on Apr 21, 2014 7:29 pm

“It deals with singularity in a way that is above most audience member’s heads, which is why it didn’t resonate with the popcorn eating sheep of America”…

…and that is why it never should have been made to begin with. Or not with hundreds of millions of dollars in production and marketing spend.

Saw It • on Apr 21, 2014 7:35 pm

It wasn’t a good film, unfortunately. But your explanation of singularity put me to sleep.

Andrew • on Apr 21, 2014 7:45 pm

Incorrect, singularity is the point at which AI surpasses all human intelligence, initiating a world which is beyond humans’ capability to understand or control.

Anonymous • on Apr 21, 2014 10:34 pm

Actually, singularity is mathematical term dealing with the size of a microchip vs its processing power, and the moment at which the size and processing capabilities reach a point where the processing power has a limit of infinity as the size approaches a negligible size (incredible processing speed in absurdly small microchips –> basically what we’ve seen with the continuing processors in computers over the past 20-25 years) and will continue with uncontrollable and unprecedented growth. It’s been popularly expanded out to technology in general with a fun imagination capturing idea of artificial intelligence, or (far more likely) the continued integration of machines and man-made technology into human beings and probably nanomachines and the like. It’s more the idea when technology becomes part of biology than some sort of super-intelligence — think something more along the lines of a virus. A non-living mechanical entity that plays a part in biology but holds no intelligence itself — it just has a program.

This movie wasn’t marketed. I’ve never seen a trailer or commercial or any kind of advertising, in fact the first time I heard it existed was when Deadline reported it had opened poorly against Capt America 2. I still don’t know what it’s about other than Depp is in it and it’s some kind of sci-fi flick. Is it aliens, time travel, or what? Set in the future? I really have no idea.

College Student • on Apr 21, 2014 7:22 pm

Weird, I must’ve seen an ad for it during every commercial break. The original trailer gave away the entire movie.

If anything, I had grown bored with this movie long before it was released due to overexposure.

Andrew • on Apr 21, 2014 7:48 pm

To be fair, I’m mainly online when I watch anything. But marketing should be there especially.

Joe Vanne • on Apr 21, 2014 6:44 pm

Hate to disagree with a journo opining what movies should get made but the movie was high concept, starred Johnny Depp and had Chris Nolan’s eyes on script and cuts. That said, it didn’t totally work, but that’s the movie business. It’s unfortunately not so easy to make a hit $100m blockbuster.

John Constatine • on Apr 27, 2014 9:20 am

It didn’t have the eye of Nolan on the script and the cuts. He was executive producer which amounts to nothing in the process of a movie. He gave his blessing to Pfister (not the script) and maybe put in touch Pfister with Alcon